Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Review

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 looks an awful lot like its predecessor, the GH3, but don't let that familiarity cloud the fact that this is one of the most capable stills/video cameras we've ever seen. Panasonic's message about listening to professional videographers is also familiar but the extent to which they're catered-for is unpredented on a camera with such a mass-market price tag.

Just like its predecessor, the GH4 wraps its sealed magnesium alloy body around a 16MP Four Thirds sensor. But that shouldn't be taken to mean that the GH4 is a minor update. The most striking difference is that the GH4 can capture 4K footage (both in the DCI 4K and UHD 4K resolutions), but the extent to which the GH4 supports a professional workflow is arguably just as significant.

The stills photographer using the GH4 benefits from a number of performance and usability improvements. Most obvious is a more capable shutter which can fire as quickly as 1/8000th seconds and syncs with flashes at up to 1/250th of a second. Continuous shooting is boosted to 12 frames per second, 7.5fps with continuous focus. Focus tracking should also improve, thanks to Panasonic's 'depth-from-defocus' (DFD) technology which attempts to assess how out-of-focus the lens is, based on profiles of how the company's lenses render out-of-focus regions.

But, as mentioned before, it's the video capabilities and the supporting features that make the GH4 such a striking camera. In addition to the 4K, the GH4 also includes focus peaking, two zebra settings (to highlight over-exposed regions) and control over Master Pedestal (black level) and luminance scale (16-255, 16-235 or 0-255). The camera can also generate color bars (for calibration) and the ability to express shutter speed and ISO in terms of shutter angle and gain. Not all of these additions will be useful to everyone (in fact I'd wager that nobody will make use of all the new features), but, whether your background is stills or video, the GH4 is likely to offer plenty of tools to support your video making.

Headline Features

16MP Four Thirds Sensor

4K recording - DCI 'Cinema 4K' (4096 x 2160) or UHD 4K (3840 x 2160)

2.36m dot OLED viewfinder

1.04m dot OLED rear screen

1/8000th maximum shutter speed

1/250th flash sync speed

Continuous shooting 12fps, 7pfs with focus tracking

As well as the electronic viewfinder, the GH4's rear screen has been upgraded, now offering a 720x480 pixel output from 1.04m dots. The screen is still a touchscreen and makes more extensive use of this feature. Thankfully it's kept the rear-screen-as-focus-point-controller feature that helped make the GH3 so nice to shoot with.

Although a host of features (such as the focus peaking, zebra and shutter angle display) have been added, the GH4's user interface is essentially identical to that of the GH3. Existing users will be able to pick up the camera and start shooting immediately. If you're in that position, we'd recommend spending a little time going through the menus to make sure you don't miss-out on what could prove to be useful features.

The GH4's price is essentially unchanged from that of its predecessor, despite all the additional features. What has changed is the addition of an extra series of connectors on the base of the GH4 that allow its connection to an external module that adds industry-standard 3G-SDI and XLR connectors to the camera.

Is the low light performance as bad as people suggest? I love the build and quality of the lumix series and the options to use my Nikkor lenses is a big attraction. Im looking for a DSLR for low light to take indoor sports (primarily Boxing so a relatively fast shutter speed required with no flash). Could this cut it with a f1:8 lens fixed? Ideally it also would with a f4 18-200.

Rented this camera for 4 days while my Nikon was being serviced. Hated the whole experience. It's very counter-intuitive, has necessary things buried layers under layers. Like, why do you have to dig into the menu to find 'formatting' for pete's sake? Manual shooting with with non-panasonic lenses is a guesswork nightmare. Shooting low light at 60fps looks pretty terrible and changing video modes is again so not fun. Think I will go for the Nikon D7200 for a much better working experience.

Hedley7d:"Nobody expect 4K right now, this is only serving filmmakers."

Not true. I have been shooting 4K with my GH4, mostly family stuff. No problems watching 4K videos with Windows 7 and with (only) Full HD monitor. Videos look great. Now I have videos in 4K format for future. They demand more space, but maybe not much more than FullHD? So what, HDD space is cheap, in comparison to how valueble those family videos are.

My ONLY problem is with RAW-images. How can I edit them in Lightroom?? I have been using Lightroom (3.6 at the moment) for years. Used to shoot RAW with Pentax. But now with GH4 I can not manipulate RAW anymore! Lightroom doesn't recognize those images.

Question. Does anyone here own/use both the GH4 and the FZ1000. I am hiking all over Costa Rica, mainly nature / landscape / bird photography and video, and time to upgrade, been using a Canon SX 40, but Video is increasingly used and the 8 mb framegrab of the 4K Video may have real value.

So considering either the GH4 and the FZ1000. One thing I am not clear on is "equivalent" focal length. The GH4 longest zoom lens i see is 100-300, and I read that that is equivalent focal length of 208-624.5mm, 2.1x crop factor?and then I read here (FZ1000: Crop factor and equivalent 35mm focal length) The advertised crop factor is 2.7x , giving an equivalent focal length of approximately 25 - 400mm, in reality 432mm.

So it would seem the GH4 with the 100-300 is longer equivalent zoom of 624.5mm vs 432 in the FZ1000, do I have that correct?

any comments about image quality or zoom quality of the 2 would be appreciated, this will likely be my "next 2-3 year" Camera

Many problem with this camera. People jump on 4K cams but they are just so many problem with them. Its the same with Black Magic cameras.

Nobody expect 4K right now, this is only serving filmmakers. TV is not there yet and will not be before a while. People buy 4K TV but there is not much before the end of 2015. The 4K blu-ray should be released in november or december 2015. Providers will put everyone on optic fiber before and we should not expect a lot of programmation in 4K until 2017-18.

I got my GH4 today from B & H, went to the park and took some shots and video, all is well life is great. O No! EVF is solid Red , no image I did not touch anything tried everything to fix , Reset, Battery out , New Battery, I mean everything. Bringing it back Tuesday for a new one, Love the camera but not as much Reliable is the word i'm thinking about, pictures and video came out great with a little contrast and saturation added, very nice camera. Anyone have this problem?

I've been having juddering issues with 24fps video on the GH4, not an even flickering that might be expected of 24fps (180d or 360d shutter angle), but juddery jolts every now and again.

It's not a computer spec issue (I don't think), as I've solved the issue by filming at the higher rate of 29.97fps (same 100Mbps). It's not the expected higher frame rate smoothness of 29.97, but that the occasional judders (every second or so) are totally gone.

The 24fps footage is edited in a 24fps timeline, the 29.97 edited in a separate 29.97 timeline, everything is as it should be; but the 24fps footage judders every now and again.

For static tripod shots, with minimal movement in the frame, 24fps looks 'ok', though I can still see an occasional nervous twitch to in-frame motion - that prevents me from panning. Set to 29.97fps, and motion is a delight, no occasional judders.

I have GH4 and I like it very muchI still want to add some things to CONS conclusion:

-Many important menu items can not set to Fn-buttons-Exposure values are not shown in video mode-Badly behaving lenses in video. 14-140mm II OIS jitters, aperture jumps and zooming is very unparfocal.-Auto iso in M photo mode has no EV-control-JPG engine is not very good, RAW photos are much better-Some ergonomic issues like review-button in wrong side-AF lock button is not working logically (cant use during video)

There is an error in review about video AF. Review says:

"in video mode....... the AFS/AFF and AFC positions both behave in the same manner... "

If AF lever is in AFC position the focus hunts wildly before record starting and causes usually first seconds of video out of focus. IF lever is in AFS position video starts normally. I think this is a bug.It would be an easy task for FW update to ignore AFC position and change it to work like AFS in video mode.

I owned some Panasonic cameras, and an Olympus. JPEG need tweaking in-camera settings. You can search the net for some guidelines. It is true most base settings are too neutral for a lot of ppl. But tweak them, you get amazing results. More contrast, lower NR, raise a little Sharpening...always the same with Pana ;)To me, Panasonic and Olympus are among the best JPEG engines.Even if, stock, i prefer Olympus : less "realistic", but more "gorgeous". But you can for sure make a Pana more gorgeous, and Oly more realistic by tweaking them.

Vesku,I think the 14-140mm lens is the problem, not the GH4. That lens did not work well on my GH3 or my GX7, so I sent it back. It might be more acceptable at a really cheap price, but when I bought it the price was close to $700 and it behaved like a $300 lens.

Can you provide detail on which important items can't be included on Fn buttons? With the GH3 and GX7, all the major things seem pretty well covered (except, of course, that one can never have enough buttons). To get around that I set up C1 and C2 to cover additional key functions. And you already have WB, etc. on dedicated controls.

Finally, the AF lock might be a defect. Do you need to set it to stay on (in the control menu) first, as you do on the GX7? I found that it was a bit odd to figure out, but once I did it's great. Also the Manual Focus assist in the GX7 is nice and I'm hoping the GH4 has the same.

AFC: rarely reliable, but GX7 doesn't do random hunting like some cameras (Sony A77ii, for example).

Lenses:-14-42 I and 100-300mm: Very sticky zoom and my tele has broke 2 times.-14-140 v2: Jittery OIS and loosing focus during zoom.-35-100mm 2.8: very bad OIS for video-20mm: slow and noisy AF-every lens has stepping aperture in video

Fn unavailable:-image control (contrast,sat,sharp,NR) very annoying, I must press about 20 times buttons if I want to just adjust contrast during shooting !!.-audio level adjust-audio meters-wind cut filter-master pedestrial-play (it is now wrong side, handy to get Fn)-video autofocus AFS/AFCAll these are useful for me during shooting. The issue for me is that I have unused Fn-buttons because I cant use the menu items I want and other I dont need so often.

You can change the Fn 2 (Q Menu) button to have loads of different options of modes and setting that you want by dragging and dropping the icons on to the menu screen.to do this, press the menu button and choose the 3rd option the spanner and a C. then on page 7 you have an option called Q.MENU - change this to custom and then you can choose what you want in there. So next time you press Fn.2 you get a whole new menu system to quickly get to the features you want to have close to hand.

As a regular Canon DSLR (5D) user I have to congratulate Panasonic for this piece of technology. Together with Sony they 'drive' the HiEnd camera tech. It's clear thet Canon despite the best lenses, cannot keep trach in camera technology. No wifi, no 4K, no usb3.1, no time lapse e.a. if other brands like Lumix can implement direct EF mount, then I consider to change, like the rest of the world.

Connectivity score I don't understand. Does that refer to wifi? GH4 is the easiest to connect to wifi I've used. Remote control with wifi includes video, which unlike Canon's 70D that does not allow wifi control of video.

How about connectivity with USB tethering? Yes, PC and Promote for advanced timelapse, focus stacking, bracketed exposure for HDR.

How about connection to power zoom control remote switches? Yes

How about wireless connection to multizone flash? Yes

How about connection/interface to SDI XLR prosound and standard xlr powersupply? Yes

How about connection to grip battery? Yes

If I were rating connectivity, I would give it a 100. Absolutely this is a Professional camera system that cnnects to anything a professional needs.

It appears that video is becoming a bigger part of new DSL's than actual picture taking quality..but, it may have a trickle down theory and stills shots will also improve as the various tech upgrades...

Audio Buzz Problem.Can anyone at DPReview test this issue thoroughly? and approach Panasonic about it / whether new batches of the camera are fixed?Problem: when an external microphone is used in conjunction with headphones a hard on/off buzz is heard (synced to shutter speed).Some reports say this is, some say this is not, recorded to the file.Panasonic are apparently fixing cameras with this issue, though reports say 'fixed' cameras while having a less evident buzz, have a raised noise floor level.As the video [inc sound] side of this camera is I presume the reason why most people would buy and use this camera, can anyone at DPRevew get to the bottom of this potentially critical issue?

Panasonic fixed this issue with early GH4 and Rode microphone. Panasonic mic does not have this issue. Simply send your GH4 to your service center and it will be fixed. Panasonic was responsive to these reports very quickly, and you can read about it in their customer support section of their web site.

To be restricted to one mic - the own-brand Panasonic, can't be right? - the mic is reportedly rather 'brittle' in sound, and not having isolation picks up camera handling vibrations. It may be 'ok' but I'd like to know I can use an external mic of my choice.I've just spent 1/2hr trying to find support on this issue on the Panasonic website; when clicking on support specifically for the GH4, I am sent to a general product support page, on entering various GH4 audio buzz searches, I find nothing.Are you sure this problem has been resolved?I am reading buyers of this camera even from a few weeks ago are finding the buzz is still evident.I'm not sure there is definite clarity on this issue.

Panasonic found the cause of the buzz and indicated that it was a relatively simple hardware modification to eliminate the buzz. Anyone with the issue can call the service number (800 211 7262) to report the issue. It will require sending your camera to the Texas service center. If the CSR person you speak with is not familiar with the fix, tell them you need to speak directly to the service center in texas and that they are aware of the issue.

The customer should ship just the camera body to the address below via a traceable insured shipper such as UPS or Fedex. Include a note with your full contact info (including e-mail and daytime phone number) and mention that its being returned for the GH4 Audio Update. Please include a copy of the proof of purchase.

Many thanks for your detailed reply quailoaksphoto, ...though I live in the UK I guess there is a similar service here.Perhaps I wasn't clear that I am a potential purchaser of the GH4 - ordering in the next week or so. I'm currently using Pentax (K5 + many lenses) so buying the GH4 would also be an outlay in lenses. I just want to make sure that using the GH4 primarily for professional paid video-work I wouldn't be entering into a system that has a fundamental audio problem. In some circles this 'motorcycle buzz' is unspoken of, in others it's a hot topic.As the GH4 circuitry has introduced this problem (GH3 external-mic/headphone audio was clean) I'm trying to ascertain whether Panasonic has addressed this on new batches of the camera?In fact as DPReview often takes note of abnormalities in other cameras (white orbs, banding, and such-like) I was wondering if they might clarify this audio issue with the GH4.

From continued research it seems the issue is present whether the mic uses trs or trrs, (there are many reports and tests, easily found when searching on 'GH4 trrs'). It even seems that the internal mic produces the problem, and the result IS recorded to file.See here with audio clips...http://suggestionofmotion.com/blog/panasonic-gh4-audio-buzz/

If the problem has been truly fixed by Panasonic, I hope when I put my order in, I receive the latest batch, though still there is some concern that the fix raises the noise floor level.I'm also surprised that the GH4 doesn't use an industry-standard trs connector. Does the GH4 really restrict us to trrs microphones (mainly the own-brand Panasonic model!), even after the fix? This is a point, as I mentioned before, that I would be glad if DPReview would be more thorough about in their review, using external mics with the GH4, such as what many people would opt for - the Rode Videomic Pro.

I have seen people make trs to trrs adapters and post their results on YouTube. By the way, a trs is no more standard than a trrs connector. Sound engineers carry in their equipment bag many different kinds of adapters to solve problems in the field with impedance matching issue, or lift switches to eliminate ground loop noise. Professional level microphones use XLR connectors and that is why the GH4 can be purchased with the DMW-YAGH for professionals to be able to use professional standard equipment with SDI and XLR connectors. I don't know whether the GH4 uses discrete amplifiers in their circuitry, but if it does, that might explain why it has a trrs connector and would also explain why some stereo microphone when wired together could play havoc with the input of the GH4. The GH4 TC can also allow you to use a separate multitrack sound recorder and sync the time code.

@left eyeThanks for addressing this apparent problem. I am myself postponing purchasing the GH4 until I know what is what in this matter. Panasonic Denmark do not recognize the problem, neither do the largest danish retailers. They say buy the camera, if you are not satisfied send it in for a repair.

I hope DPReview follow up on your request and manage to cast some light on this potentially critical issue.

Personally I prefer having discrete input, especially since this allows control through the menu. Panasonic has not done a good job documenting their connector and the corresponding menu when using a correct microphone/connector. I have a Rode shotgun and frankly I do not find it's or the Panasonic mic to have the quality I demand. I do understand not everyone has the same needs.

@fbh dk..I'm glad to have someone equally concerned who is speaking up, I really don't understand why this issue has not been properly acknowledged by DPReview, as it has been widely acknowledged by many users of the camera.

I appreciate quailoaksphoto's responses, though I somehow still remain unconvinced ...yes off-camera audio recording is a work-around to a problem that is present with the GH4, but wasn't with the GH3!

There is the possibility Panasonic have resolved this issue with the latest batches of GH4's, can DPReview please get to the bottom of this, I'm sure many low-budget professional film-maker / photographers, such as I, would appreciate their detailed testing of this issue.

If DPReview miss this thread how would I ask them directly to look into the GH4 audio buzz?

fz200?? good sir, perhaps you would like to familiarize yourself with sensor sizes, CA in wide and long zoom lenses, and image quality with small versus large photosites. for your own sake, at least consider the fz1000 as a good noob's camera... in this day and age, with all that is available, you need not settle for a fz200.

As an owner of both the FZ200 and the FZ1000 I can say with some authority that the IQ of the FZ200 is very good and at lower ISO levels very much on par with the FZ1000, For most people, the FZ200 is all they need. The complexity of the FZ1000 makes it unsuitable for a lot of people regardless of how good the IQ is. Yes, there is a difference when you print large images, but until you get to or above 15x20 inch you would have a hard time telling which camera shot which picture.

@DoctorJerry: what you wrote, is enough to discourage anyone from ever wanting to buy the new FZ1000, if it performs the same as a tiny-sensor camera. (the tiny-sensor model doesn't even come into question - there is no way I'll go back to tiny sensors!). So thanks for the tip. It clearly resolves the question of "FZ1000 or RX10?".

I have a GH4 and while I love the detail it provides in 4K video mode, it's jpegs are just average. I prefer Olympus and Canon jpeg colors to the GH4. The Panasonic FZ1000 however, offers excellent jpeg colors and those great colors carry over to FZ1000 video as well. This is a hint that Panasonic knows how to get the colors right and the future GH5 will get them right.

What SD card do you use to record 4k video ?4k video [4K/100M/30p] 100Mb/s ?On the Panasonic web page they show their Gold SDXC 1 class 10 U3 card that is rated at read 90 write 45 mb/s. and claim "4k video support"I tried a FZ1000 in a shop today and it seemed to be recording 4k (and playing) with a Sandisc Ultra class 10 30mb/s card Does the camera compress quality to suit the installed card?have I missed something?http://panasonic.net/avc/sdcard/product_lineup/index.html#Gold

I have been using a 'Transcend 64GB U3 UHS-1 SDXC Card' in my GH4 without any problems.This card is rated at 95MBps Read, 60MBps Write (thats Megabytes per second so multiply by 8 to see the Mbps [Megabits per second] values). Those are burst speeds but the 'U3' rating indicates that the cards are designed to be capable of a sustained write of at least 30MBps (240Mbps).The 4K video codec is 'only' 100Mbps IPB whereas the GH4 Full HD video codecs also go up to 200Mbps All-INTRA (the high bitrate Full HD codecs high are not available in the FZ1000 as far as I know).The 64GB Transcend card is much cheaper than similar SanDisk or Lexar variants (about £26 delivered from 'My Memory' in UK) but make sure you get the 'U3' version as some sellers are offering the slower 'U1' versions at similar (or higher!) prices.These speed cards may well be overkill in the FZ1000 but it's always nice to have a bit of headroom, plus the faster readouts enable quicker file transfers to the PC.

A 6000 is cheaper and has better DR, DOF, ISO, Colors. Try it with 35 1,8 oss lens!Gh2 is good for video, but gh3 not, because it cannot shoot in shutter priority mode and auto iso. Auto iso always locks at high values and stay overexposed. This is reason why i sold gh3. Then i try a 6000 and stay with Sony. Pana is nothing close.

IMO, your comments should be posted with a6000 review. Jurka, you apparently have no experience with the GH4 so your comment is not relevant to this review. Good photographers take great photos with any camera. It matters more who is behind the camera, not the camera. Glad your happy with whatever fits your needs.

mamotto, it's not relevant because my GH4 shoots in shutter priority mode and auto iso, no locking, or overexposure. If you owned a GH4, which is what this review is about, you would know that. Let's keep the comments relative to this GH4 review.

My D800 has better detail than the a6000. So what, it has nothing to do with this GH4 review. Further if I said my D300 didn't focus well in low light therefore the D810 would not without me using a D810 would be equally irrelevant especially if I were commenting on the GH4.

Sony e-mount lens choice is rather limited and underwhelming, i like sony body design and their prices are good. But always when desire appears to get sony nex or now a6000 i check lens line-up and desire disappears right away. Focusing speed problems and overall operation speed seems is fixed now, but problem with lens choice will stay for a while. Especially they are focusing now on ff.

35 1,8 oss is a perfect lens. Especially for video (with nd filters). 70-200 f4 is very good for photo. Also i have 50 mm, wich is not so good as 35, 10-18 oss. 18-105 f4. In real life i use 35 mm and 70-200. When i owned Pana, i always using 14-140, because of very good ois. All other lenses was been without oss and unusable for video shooting handheld. And, yeah, A6000 autofocus ir usable for video, while Pana very often shows "focus jumping". That is a not big problem, because i use focus lock button, while shooting. Sony is better with light lenses and oss. Pana is better with universal 14-140 and best ois in industry. But Sony Cx-900 has it all and inbuilt ND filter also. :) I use A6000 only in extreme darkness, in night. Here is sample footage ir really dark night 4 AM. http://youtu.be/tbr7HxI6vWg?list=UUbdwnsZdvzcRVfhba-LYOMw

I don't use video often, so most important are stills. Can't really compare video myself. m43 has fast, rather small weather sealed zooms with really good performance across the frame wide open. Now i'm waiting for oly 40-150, yes, it's almost as big as sony 70-200 f4, but covers a lot more useful range (70-200 is a bit awkward focal length on APS-C), is faster and what i'm also really looking forward is close-up ability of this lens (even better with TC1.4x). If not this i would have already bought panasonic 35-100, which is tiny.

How is it contradiction? It's wider and quite close to aov of 70-200mm on FF + extra reach. It also works well with tc1.4x, then it will be 112-420mm f4. So yes, it does cover more useful range. Min. focus distance doesn't change with teleconverter, so magnification will be even better.

If my math is right, that's the exact same as the LX100's UHD crop. Which means if you intend to shoot 4k with both, the LX100's lens is a little wider comparitively than you would think, and much closer to a "true" 4/3rds sensor.

I'm not familiar with the LX100 but version 2 firmware for GH4 is a game changer for those want to use anamorphic lens to get wider format while preservinging full vertical resolution of 2.8k when shooting 1:1. To me, this clearly sets the GH4 apart from the LX 100.

I've been working my way through the GH-series through the years, and currently have a GH3. I've tried the equivalent Olympus cameras, and they just fall down on usability. I can alter settings on the Panasonic cameras without a second's thought, yet Oly bury things under layers of not necessarily obvious menus.

So I don't think it's a simple case of saying "If you're only interested in stills then it's not quite such a compelling proposition" - because I'd rather get 100% of my photos almost there, than a handful.

So true mate, I am still using my GH1 as first camera in order of preference mainly for the same reason. I don't even need to think when changing the settings. Probably I am very used to of it .. My fingers moves without me looking at the camera and press the right buttons. This is Pany GH* series for you.

Can't agree mate. I've never owned an Olympus and yet find the EM-1 a complete doddle to use and entirely intuitive. I've never had such a high keeper rate from any camera I've owned ever, and that includes several Canon DSLR's and the occassional Leica.

You should consider the size of the lenses. I use m4/3, APS-C, and FF. There's no doubt that m4/3 lenses have a size advantage if you want small lenses. Many m4/3 lenses are absolutely tiny. Keep in mind that body size is only one aspect of overall camera size. Lens size is a pretty big aspect of overall camera size.

Besides, you don't want camera bodies to be TOO small, because then it effects handling and ergonomics. So even if all m4/3 bodies were the same size as FF and APS-C mirrorless bodies, I think that would be perfectly fine. But when you start mounting lenses on these bodies, that's where the size difference becomes apparent. Furthermore, if you have a whole bag full of lenses, the size differential becomes even more significant. So like I said, body size is only one aspect of overall camera size. Don't forget that bodies need lenses.

n4/3 makes perfect sense. It's about the lenses. Considering most people who are advanced amateur and up have most of their money tied up in lenses - not bodies. And the lenses for m4/3 are much smaller than aps-c or FF. So you can buy an army of lenses for m4/3 - then have a nice big body like the GH4 when you need all the external controls and ergonomics. Then also have a body like the GM1 when you need something small and discrete. All with the same lens mount. I don't know of another lens mount you can do this with.

Me either really. A rolls-royce with a vauxall engine. BUT I take it the 4/3 is the limit the current technology can handle for processing 4k data and still keep it to a pretty heavy SLR size with very low battery life. A bigger sensor will need bigger processor and will be even less practical. In fact, they released the camera and associated frankenstein DMW-YAGH base for videos at the same time. I think Panasonic rational is simple, they used to make things called camcorders for videos...but since soccer moms have now have iphone to film their kids practice, no one is buying them anymore. So they found a clever way to redress a videocamera and target it to the photographer's market that tends to have more disposable income as they are used to getting 'the system'. Plus they get a very smart videographer like Philip Bloom to be the spokesperson and everyone now wants to do videos. Cynical I know.

BarnET - yes, I am on board with 1". I think the lenses can be made small enough and the IQ is good enough for most situations. I just wish Sony would do with the 1" sensor what they did with the A7s - make a 10MP version that has super low noise. 10MP is more than enough for most things - and noise is the problem right now with 1".

BrownieThat makes sense especially since even the latest mkIII has problems getting usuable detail out of the 20mp sensor.

But i am not sure about 10mp. I don't know if the 16:9 crop is enough for 4k video. But i am all in for a rx100s with 12mp and 4k video internally. even if it takes 2 years for the processors to become efficient enough to prevent failure in tiny bodies.

BarnET - yes whichever resolution is needed for 4K in 16:9 mode - that is the one I meant. I think you are right - it is 12MP. That is the 1" sensor Sony should make. If it had clean ISO 3200 (or even 1600) I would be on board with that sensor.

The film industry will move away from the constraints of old film standard to High Frame Rate (HFR) which is double or more the 24 fps standard. This was done in Lord of the Rings and Avatar. This means less flicker, less motion blur and stuttered movement. This not only provides more realistic movement but but supports wider range of camera moves esspecially when filming sporting events. 24 fps was used for those transfering a video to film. 24, 25, and 30 relate more to old TV and cinema standards. 120p will be the single global standard for UHDTV. Projection rates also differ by using flashing, such as flashing a frame three times on the screen. Typically a 24 fps film, when flashed 3 times per frame, so the audience does not experience as much flicker. If you want your digital film to be smooth, crisp, and amazing, you need to shift with the industry to the higher frame rate.

HFR was a proven failure with LOTR. People hated it.It looked unnatural and cheapened the look of the experience. There is no indication that the film industry is moving away from 24p capture. There is no indication that the general public want to adopt higher frame rate, the major tv brands put high scan rates in their TVs and it looks absolutely ridiculous, and most people with a modicum of taste turn it off. Eliminating motion blur doesn't look natural in the slightest and makes the moving image look terrible.What people want is more RESOLUTION, through processes like IMAX and 4k projection/display. HFR doesn't get you anymore clarity or resolution.

24 fps shot on 1/50th of a second is what I still shoot on both my Canon Eos 550D and Eos 6D, but I am only doing it to stay within the borders of the so called "film look" like we all used to see in the analog (and current digital) times. I have no idea whether 24 fps is better or not but i can imagine higher framerates can be better maybe for modern fast moving images in 3D cinema's (or even 3D home cinema systems). I have seen LOTR in 3D but didn't find it disturbing (HFR). Maybe it really depends on what kind of movie the producer is shooting? A bit the same with the fact that not all movies are getting any better when converted to 3D (since 3D only pays off with certain types of movies).

"My preferred method of 1080p capture on the GH4 is to bypass the internal 1080p recording options altogether, instead scaling my 4K recordings to 1080p whilst editing. Doing so is as trivial as inputting 50% for clip size on a timeline in my editing software - yet the gain in quality over the internal 1080p is enormous."

Is 100 Mbit/s 4k downscaled to 1080p really better than 200Mbit/s 1080p24 GH4 can record? Especially when fast panning or a lot of movement in the scene is present?

E-M5 - no clicking. Anyway, sound is recorded with external mic by those who want more quality. On the other hand, with most lenses there will be no OIS, and with the few lenses with OIS, rotational and translational movements are not stabilized anyway.

Panasonic has explained that already , there are lot of heat from sensor when shooting in 4K mode, so sensor must be fixed to body what works as a heat sink. I guess that was a reason why in rumours we saw Oly EM1 firmware update with 4K, but later it was released without it.

It true they gave that reason when they were asked why no IBIS, and perhaps there is some truth to that explanation. But I think that just taking them at their word would be a bit naive. I'd be surprised if the problem was really so insurmountable if there was a will.

We know that in the past Panasonic has not offered IBIS on their m43 cameras, even when there was no reason they could not. Just like Canon and Nikon with their APS-C cameras. If they had made a similar decision in regards to the GH4, would you expect them to come out and say that? "We did not offer IBIS because we want to force our customers to buy stabilized Panasonic lenses". Yeah right.

And just out of curiosity, does 4K video actually work the sensor so much harder? On an APS-C camera, does only a smaller part of the sensor operate when recording video? That would surprise me, but I don't know. Seems like the processor would take the hardest hit when recording 4K.

Oh no , I am far from being naive in my attitude to producers and their target to get as much money from as as possible , and I really like a conspiracy theories, but that explanation about heat sounded very reasonable, plus Pany has put IBIS in GX7 , but not in more expensive and very video oriented GH4. It would be interesting to know, how many video cameras there are in the market who has some kind of IBIS. And I have tried 60 sec exposures with black frame in room temperature , when sensor gets time to heat up, and same 60 sec with camera left outside for an hour in aprox -15C- 20C , it was unbelievable how cleaner from noise is file from colder sensor. So I kinda believe that it is important to get away as much heat as possible from sensor in long continuous use. But lets see technologies will develop , sensors will become more effective and maybe Olympus IBIS way will be the right one

If nobody is asking for it or demanding it, then they probably will not put it in. But if Olympus comes out with a camera with similar video capabilities AND their excellent IBIS, Panasonic will likely be forced to respond. There's no denying that it is a very useful feature.

I've owned the GH4 for 3 months now and I absolutely love this camera! I shoot approximately 60% video and 40% stills. It's nice to read that Richard believes the GH4 is right on par with the EM-1 in stills quality. However, I'm sure there will be those Oly cultists who will continue to misinform and downplay the stills capability of the GH4. The bottom line...the GH4 is currently the king of micro 4/3 cameras.

Gh4 is not the king. EM1 and GH4 have their strenghts and EM1 is still better in stills from some perspective. most prominent one is the use of 4/3 lenses on it like they are nartive m43s. Especially for those who shoot BIF and sports, that is a big up. Panny has nothing that is usable beyond the 100 mm range. There are more things better on the Oly btw, also other things better on the Panny. IBIS of course is another one. Not having IBIS restricts the use of some lenses to some degree on the Panny....I like the GH4 a whole lot, the best cam I ever had but it is only the best thing for me.

While the GH4 does a lot of things right for still shooting, I feel the EM1 is still more well rounded for the task. The only area the GH4 truly exceed the EM1 in still shooting is with the swivel LCD (instead of just tilting), the rest the GH4 is either equaled or ouitmatched by the EM1.

There's a lot to like about the GH4, but coming from Pentax DSLRs (and Olympus before that) it would be tough to lose in-body IS. Too bad Panasonic couldn't find a way to incorporate it on the GH4. There's a lot of great m43 lenses out there without stabilization!

Even if there was an issue with noise from the IS system during video, there's no reason the sensor IS could be turned off for video.

So I don't know if the noise issue had anything to do with it, but I also heard (or read somewhere) that the heatsink on the sensor would have made implementing sensor IS more difficult. (Presumably they took extra measures to insure overheating would not be a problem during heavy video use.)

Might be a tactical decision. Not to let Oly zooms take a foothold in Panny land. Who knows. Also: Oly's IBIS is so good because it is used (first) in Oly's med equipment. It is not that you can just make some IBIS and make it fantastic. Just that Oly or others cannot just up Panny on 4K video.

I know it sounds a bit cynical, but you may be right. I've also wondered if it might be a bit of gamesmanship on Panasonic's part. It's hard to believe in this day and age that they couldn't have found a way to stabilize the sensor in a beefy body like that.

And we know that Canon and Nikon have made tactical decisions to not offer sensor stabilization, presumably to entice their customers to double-dip on more expensive, stabilized lenses.

Perhaps it's a feature they can ad to a GH4 successor down the road when competition gets tighter.

Portuguese/Dutch (born and always lived in The Netherlands btw). So the linguistical connection with Brazil is rather strong. As in Portugal there was already an older Jorge in my familly, my name there automatically was changed in Jorginho. A normal procedure there (and in Brasil too I think).

Thx. English is the world standard, so that must be the reason for many of us overhere being reasonably good at them. In NL we have to learn English from age 12 onwards and nowadays it is age 6-7. At age 12, you can go to a 100% English spoken school. Not some international school, just an average school in an average town anywhere in NL. The constant contact with English via the internet, via television (we do not use voice-overs) etc means you won't lose the ability to speak, read or write it so easy I think.

@prossi today...best cam for video..my opinion is that picture quality still not better like the old e-510.samsung nx1 will be better.the nx300 picture qualitiy is better too.but ok like i say thats no mft cams.wish olympus/panasonic bring a mirrorless e-FT system.im no profi but i had eyes.watch the mans beard..thats all but no detail.there some other pictures that had no details/sharpnes.but ok for video 84%....wow.

The Gh4 is not far off at base so it is not a big difference. But the combination of a better sensor when it comes to DR, tonal range, colour sensitivity PLUS 24 Mpixels indeed makes a notable difference. I don't know if there are good lenses for this cam, bit if so it is a better cam for that.

In 2015 Panny/Fuji will finish their organic sensor. I have seen calculations based on the specs currently known and it points to lower noise by several stops. Not just one or two which of course is so much I become very suspiscious about that data...Also, the Dynamic range would be like 14eV. In short: if it is true we are talking about current FF tech on a mFT sensor...Surely we can bump the MPixel count up to 40 Mpixel by then. And if so, it would be wise to split the G-series in a G and Gh. Where the G series would be for everything but film, using the 40 Mpixels and Panny should make a A7s on mFT size with 16 Mpixel or so for extreme low light..But is this real? I'm not holding my breath

Even if many (most?) of my pictures are for my daughter, I still think a good equipment is required for that task. Sometimes, getting a fast moving child in focus requires a camera able to track the subject or a very fast AF. Usually a deep buffer is a nice addition, so you can take several raw pictures in burst mode. Besides, since many pics are taken indoor, a fast short zoom lens is a nice have, and also a decent bouceable flash. All those items cost $$$.

Yes, if you can afford $1700 plus the cost of good lenses. But most families don't spent that much on a camera. "$500 plus" modern cameras are general good and capable. The picture quality is mostly determined by photographer, not the camera.

The need for high-priced cameras is just one of they many ways that children steadily drain your bank account. If you think a $1,700 camera is too high, wait till you have to pay for braces, ballet lessons, and of course, college. I've done both and trust me when I say it's much cheaper and more emotionally rewarding to raise Golden Retrievers.

When growing up I don't remember my childhood being ruined by the poor quality of my dad's old Kodak. That $1700 is for your benefit, not your kids. If you cared about your kids you'd put the money towards their hobbies and interests, or perhaps their future. You wouldn't waste it on a camera.

I had a chihuahua once, and now I have three kids. In my opinion, kids are much easier to live with. (And they hardly ever bite your ankles!)

That being said, your kids are only young once, and they grow up so quickly. I think it is worth it to own the best camera that works for your family budget.

Someone who would be shocked at the thought of a $1700 camera may not bat an eye at paying $400-$500 a month for a car that is way nicer than they really need. I'll take the old car and the nice camera!

57even: Of course it's for parents benefits to get better images of their kids (and a nice toy to play with) and there is nothing wrong wig that. The "if you care about your kids" part is off , because you make it sound as if all kids have to suffer when their parents spend money for themselves. Unless parents are cruel to their kids I'd say: happier parents = happier kids.

Most kids are shot with smartphones nowadays, my wife refuses to use anything else. Nothing wrong with that other than you keeping to stick short focal length phones in their face. But if you want to capture good quality images of important impressions or something to hang on the wall then a good camera helps tremendously to get that and is more fun to use.

And before you spend thousands for shooting woods and hills you might consider spending that kind of money for shooting your most loved ones (even if some people prefer their dogs over their kids, which sounds quite wrong btw).

After much thought and deliberation, I'm going to have to agree with the OP. If you don't have at least a semi-pro camera that is less than two years old, then you probably do not love your children and should be reported to Child Protective Services.

And in the future, you should only be allowed supervised visitation with your children, and there must be a professional photographer present during the visit.

All joking aside, witnessing your little babies grow up is a bitter-sweet experience. You take joy in each new milestone, but you feel the loss of the tiny, innocent person that you could once easily hold in your arms and cuddle and kiss to your heart's delight.

And quality photographs are one of the best ways to hold onto those memories and in some small way, relive those precious moments. (Not to mention quality video!)

It's true that you don't need to have the latest, most-expensive camera for that purpose, but it does help to have a quality camera. With cheap cameras you will be more likely to get noisy, blurry, out-of-focus, and otherwise unappealing shots. And just as important as having a good camera, you have to put in the time and effort to learn how to use it.

But I think everybody on here understands all of that, even if it was not expressed in the same way.

I agree with you...it's hard to overstate how important good photos will be to you and your family years later. That being said, I would have some serious questions for the stranger in the scenario you presented, lol.

Some of our most important family shots were done on a Panasonic LF1. Often the content is more important than the technical quality.

Still at one point you get into territory where technical limits can ruin things. The LF1 and phone cams have huge DOF compared to MFT, so the auto-focus isn't as critical. With MFT you can regularly ruin your shots due to focus not being up to the task of tracking moving kids.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who first picked up a DSLR to capture pictures of their young children. And even though my photographic interests have broadened, my children still remain my favorite subjects. So when I'm shopping for new camera equipment, I find these types of shots very useful.

It's nice you're doing research, but you absolutely do not need to spend $1,700 on a camera to take pictures of your children. A smaller, cheaper camera will work just as well (in your case), be easier to maneuver, and have less complicated controls. Of course, if you have the extra money and time to spend learning, something like the GH4 is a fantastic camera. It's not the only one, though. Edit: This is actually not a DSLR, either. It's an MILC.

I've been shooting for years now and have several thousand dollars worth of glass, but I've become more interested in video lately, which is why I'm paying attention to this camera. I would prefer to not maintain two systems, which is why I'm also interested in the photo capabilities of the GH4.

But after seeing some video from the Panasonic LX100, I might just buy that to replace my RX100 II as my compact camera/video camera, and keep my current DSLR for photography.

I must admit though, the GH4 is a tempting option to fill both rolls. (And I know it's not a DLSR, but I didn't really say that it was).

I would like to read recommendations for the smaller and cheaper camera to capture moving kids indoors *without* torturing them with flash, please?! I just took a look at a birthday picture of my kids, shot in the morning less than 1m from a window (side and front of the face), lights in the room turned on, 1/160 to stop most of the motion (mostly you need 1/250 for kids, but he stood on his chair not moving too fast) at 2.8 with the E-M1. Result: ISO 3200-6400. Talk about noise and loss of detail, especially since 1/160 still did not stop down all movement and the camera kept focusing on the more contrasty shirt collars instead of the eyes.

Strangely I am thinking about going for a bigger camera instead of a smaller one. Must be those precious moments with my most valued people I'd like to freeze in time... and then you might even want to take a video in those light situations.

I understand Timur. Would the 25 mm f1.4 Panaleica work btw? That is two stops and 25 mm seems to be reasonable. A7s comes to mind, but I don't think it is good at subjecttracking (just my presumption btw). Otherwise a FF DSLR seems to be the best option currently if you want to shoot at ISO1600.3200, have good IQ and zoomlenses that are also up for the task.

For shooting indoors without flash I usually use my Sigma 30mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 with great results. And I'm using a Pentax K-30 APS-C DSLR which is probably good for an extra stop vs the best 4/3 sensors.

So yeah...if you're wanting to shoot a lot indoors without a flash, get faster glass and probably a larger sensor. The 4/3 sensors have come a LONG way since my old Olympus e510, but they still don't match the larger sensors for low-light work.

I just went to DXOMark's sensor comparison tool, and the High ISO score for the Pentax K-30 is 1129, vs 757 and 791 for the E-M1 and the GH4. But to put those numbers in perspective, my e510 was rated only 442. And my first APS-C camera, the Pentax K-x, was 811. So while 4/3 is getting much better, APS-C is maintaining its advantage.

To give a little more perspective 1129 vs 791 is about 1/2 stop. And 442 vs 791 is just short of a stop. It is better to look at the graphs DxO gives us and look at them. In this case I think half to 2/3s of a stop difference in noise is also what you can expect based on the size difference. It is surely helfpul, but when you really need a flash it won't solve the problem I think.

It might be hard to precisely nail-down how much you gain, but I liked my Pentax K-x at ISO 1600 more than I liked my e510 at ISO 800. And my K-30 is heads-and-shoulders above my K-x. There are other factors that go into it, such as megapixels and the nature of the noise. Some cameras' noise is uglier than others.

But when looking at sample pictures online, I can see the advantage the larger-sensor cameras have. My daughters do ballet and gymnastics, so I spend a lot of time at high ISO, so I need every advantage I can get.

It's true that sometimes a flash will be the only way to sufficiently freeze the motion, but I've been amazed at some of the situations my K-30 and my wide-aperture lenses have been able to handle. And the K-30 with a 1.4 lens will certainly allow a significantly faster shutter speed and/or lower ISO than the E-M1 with an f2.8 lens.

And for either camera, shooting RAW and using a good noise-reduction tool will also help.

|Today I took the Gh4 to a football match. I wished wished wished for a 100-250 mm f3.5 lens (or so) that was FAST in focussing (unlike my dogslow 100-300. My 35-100 f2.8 did fine, but the reach is just not good enough...and 150 mm (oly 40-150) is better but I saw 300 mm was so nice....

Very interesting article. If the organic sensor does appear and delivers on its promise, then going m43 would be an obvious choice for me. I'm one of those who actually prefer the greater depth of field the smaller 4/3 sensors provide (in most situations).

I'm a big fan of Panasonic cameras, I've owned many. The GH4 is a really nice camera. Panasonic has presented a very finished instrument for image-gathering. That said, the advantages of the Sony A7s will probably make me buy one over the GH4, even though I have tons of glass for Panny.

The A7s is not a great "finished product' it does not have the pedigree of many iterations, it's the start of something but something I like, big sensor, big EVF and a sensor optimized for video and high ISO.

I suspect Panny will tweak their sensor and come out with something like the Sony and Sony will study the features in the Panny and upgrade their offerings soon. (not like Sony hasn't been making video cams for 40 years).

They say it's not the tool but the artisan, not the pen but the penmanship, and these are both great cameras but despite the thumbs up on the GH4 I think I'm going with the crazy new Sony.

A7r is also the one I want to replace my Canon 5DII, but the ergonomics of Sony A7r is not that good. Especially I don't like where the shutter button is, behind a dial wheel. I will certainly keep an eye on Sony for the next generation product. At the same time I use GH4 for travel and daily use. Pretty nice.

You own neither, I purchased both and returned the A7S. The lack of detail as well as atrotious moire is intolerable. There is no internal 4K. You have to purchase Sony app to due time lapse. No touch screen, magnification as focus aid drops out after three sec regardless of menu setting. That lack of detail with MP is glaring. regardless of high ISO, Sony just cant recover detail in shadows, the dinamic range is not in range I consider important. Couple that with lack of lens and flash system... I would never invest several thousand dollars in a system based on a DPR review. Until you shoot with both you will never know what you missed. And by the way, the version 2 GH4 firmware upgrade, provided tethering to Promote, improved focusing, and a feature that make the GH4 a no contest winner, the ability to take 4K stills from video loops. Great for ligtning, firworks, sports, candid street. The GH4 is the boss.

(continue from below) I thought the better performance from the Olympus cameras is partially due to the eye priority face detection — if it is good enough to find the eye, it can find the head. In contrast, the GH3 will often focus on the background or the clothes. I was thus very excited when GH4 has eye priority face detection. Does it really help to track a person? All parents of young children would love to know.

While there is some discussion on DFD, I am confused whether DPR thinks it really "works?" It says that it does not seem to track, but it does seem to have good "keep rates," which is really the outcome that will impact how many good photos we will get. Is the keep rate good enough that it does matter whether this is achieved by tracking or by rapid refocusing (or whatever)? How does the keep rate compared to those of a traditional dSLRs, such as D7100 or a new and improved mirrorless version using on-sensor AF technology, EM1, A6000, and alike? More info please.

From my limited time using the eye tracking it works. I'm not sure how well it or any cameras will work with kids running around, but if movement is limited it does a fine job.

The DFD works well, but you have to keep your target in your focusing zone. I've found the custom focus zone setting really helps with this. I'm not sure if DPR used DFD in conjunction with this feature.

I'm not a video guy and I can tell you the 4 smokes the 3 for photo features and usability.

Besides 4k videos, DFD and other AF features are another important improvements that GH4 has presumably brought to the table. However the AF performance section in the review is surprisingly short. At this time and age, the time it takes to lock on to a subject, which is easy to measure, no longer means very much. The key differential in AF performance is the ability to track and focus on moving objects. If you can't get the subject in focus, who care about DR and noise?

Face detection is an advantage of the mirrorless cameras to "track" a person in motion, to compensate the traditionally mediocre performance in focus tracking. In my experience with GH3 and E-PL5, I found face detection works better with E-PL5 because it always manages to focus on the head of the person even when the face is no longer detectable. (to be continued above)

From all the samples posted I see that M43 still has a long way to go in terms of still image resolution and noise performance. Even at low iso the images posted from the Gh4 are still quite noisy in the shadows.

Not true.Shadow noise is mostly determined by DR, and the GH4 has more DR at low ISOs than Canon APS-C cameras. Most likely you are looking at bad examples because all these cameras (m43 and APS) are very, very good at lower ISOs.

No, it's really just noisy. Even w/o getting into details you can see quality diffs from the lcd itself when doing a sidebyside with an a6000. Forget about canon, their apscs sensors are all cut out from the D5 markIII sensor which is 8y old. Thing is the 4/3 is easy to process easy to video out, easy to get good lens selection out of it and easy to carry around. To get the 4k you pay a huge weight penalty here to basically get back to the SLR size camera and still carry around a 4/3 sensor that is what it is. What I am sayin is this is a great videocamera with still capabilities.

I hate Panasonic. I hate their cameras, their TVs, everything.I have never owned a good Panasonic anything.

Now there's another camera, with new samples, and another high rating (seems like all cameras get high ratings nowadays). But I've been fooled before by Panasonic, and then again when I thought they changed their ways. Every single Panasonic camera I have owned quickly became a reason to buy a different camera. Horrible noise! Horrible color! Horrible camera!

oh dear oh dear, you must have had a very unpleasant experiance with a panasonic long long ago, to have such a deep rooted phobia. Wonder why you bought a 2nd (3rd, 4th??) Panasonic camera when they were clearly very hateful and offended your sensitivities ...... go on, do tell.

I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to get people to not buy Panasonic products so that demand will go down which will drive prices lower so that you can get Panasonic products even cheaper and be able to buy even more of them. Very clever Viewfinder.

I moderate the GH4 User Group on Facebook and we have been looking forward to a profile dynamic range test like DPReview published for the GH2.

Unfortunately, this entire dynamic range page is only about iDynamic- which we have found creates a speckled blue noise in the image, especially in 4K, and we don't use it.

It would be far more useful to see how CineD compared to CineV, Standard, Natural, etc. And when you say, "You should choose CineLikeD for heavier grading and colour work on the GH4 ... The upside is that dynamic range is actually still very good and comparable to the dynamic range offered by raw video on the 5D Mark III..." you should SHOW thy dynamic range tests to back that up.

I like this camera. But light is like money, there never seems to be enough around. So low light performance is really important to me. Great performance at ISO 2500 and useable ISO 10,000 are big consideration. This fact alone keeps me with the 5D3. Although the A7s is really tempting, it really would just fill the 5D3 spot but with no magic lantern and fewer lens options (and the A7s is fiddly, and apparently has bizzare color artifiacts in highlights). I'm looking forward to seeing what Canon will do with the C100 mkII (and EOS-M III for pocket-sized cam), other than that I'll consider adding the new Sony PXW-FS7.

I use m43, but if you need almost as good as it gets low light, very decent action/sports, great 1080p video, outstanding landscape, I think the D810 is the best camera outhere, and Nikon lens line-up is fantastic. I think D810 is a very underated camera for low light, but people forget the resolution it has allows for huge noise reduction to be applied compared to much lower res cameras, and also the sensor is really more sensitive at the same exposure compared to competing cameras.If size and weight is ok, with you, I don't think there's a better camera. If you need crazy low light video, A7s for sure, but you live with lots of compromises.For me, m43 already surpass my low light needs and sports needs, so I take the smaller size. I wish I had a bit more rsolution though.

Some say the new D750 is the way to go for low light in Nikon, I'm sure the D810 is really good too. They may both be better than the 5D3 (which is getting old) at this point. But the 5D3 is doing the job for now in low light, and in a few months (maybe a year) there'll be a 5D4 and/or a C100 mk II (these companies will be leapfrogging one another for a while yet I suspect). I don't have an urgent need, but definitely watching developments because who doesn't want ever-increasing quality and features, and very happy to see all the brands making strides.Someone starting from scratch may do well with a Nikon body and lenses.

Really a very impressive camera, especially for video -- which seems to be where u4/3 shines. However, the JPEGs don't seem to be as good as the raw would allow them to be, and even raw resolution per pixel isn't awesome... perhaps this is using a heavier anti-alias filter than most cameras? The still image IQ is definitely down a couple of notches from a much cheaper Sony A6000 (which DPReview rated 5% lower), especially for JPEGs, and the price-competitive A7 blows it away.

You found why the GH4 scored so much higher. The OOC jpeg and RAW output are not as good as the A7, but since there is so much more in to getting the best images and content the GH4 scores higher. It simply is a more capable camera.

The A7 is not in the same category so can not be compared (a7 does not come up in the comparison table).

The review makes lots of references to the A7s but for video mostly.

The A7 is for ME the more capable camera than the GH4.

For video, then yes, the GH4 would be better than the ordinary A7 though the a7 is good enough for me for video.

For the price, I would rather have an A6000 than a GH4 for photography and A6000 video is quite nice too.

Nothing wrong with a GH4 but it seems more of a high end good/controlled light video camera that can do pretty nice stills to me.Panasonic Lx100 might well do me as my 4k (jacket) pocketable camera and A7 for stills and video otherwise.

The gh4 is not for everyone and the a7 is a good camera, but the gh4 focuses faster, has faster fps, has a nicer grip, more custom settings, better video, imho better weather sealing, silent shutter (like a7s) and on and on. It is the more capable camera for most, but as you point out, not all.

Does it have more custom settings for stills?The A7 has everything I want customisable .

Even for video, the A7 (and several other Sony cameras) has a $10 App available that gives many many millions of settings for colour ETC in camera.The GH4 does have some things the A7 does not, but then again, the a7 has some the GH4 does not (I like using digital zoom on the fly for instance and having FF and APSC modes). For stills, I much prefer the A7.....and I would prefer the a6000 too at the price. IF I was a video pro with control of the lighting, then the GH4 would be a great choice.Again, the GH4 seems a wonderful camera for video pros and serious video amateurs and is the best 4k camera around at its price point while being a good M4/3 stills camera, 4k is currently only up to 30p though. For 50/60p it would be nice to see some comparisons...and for stills, they are different class cameras.

What has a nicer grip is also subjective....the A7 has the nicest grip yet for ME.

Funnily enough, while I have big hands, I find the A7 just about perfect for a grip.I HATE the grip of the GX7, that pinches my hand, and while I used to like DSLR grips of various sizes, they now feel funny after the A7.

This is a very subjective thing. The A7 and GX7 grips are probably the two closest in build of any two cameras I own but are so far apart for me.

Could you add a low light comparison to the video section. The resizing of the whole 4k section for video in the various ways for the GH4 and A7s are going to have a significant impact compared to you average line skipping implementation when it comes to noise. You could leave the level of brightness the same and just use faster shutter speeds or change the lighting but its something that has to be shown.

More about gear in this article

Panasonic's new GH5 flagship will be hitting the streets soon, joining the GH4 in the company's line of video-centric cameras. With our eye on video features, we take a look at the ten biggest differences between these two cameras. Read more

PocketWizard is bringing its FlexTT5 TTL radio flash control system to Panasonic. At launch only the GH4 and DMW-FL360L and DMW-FL580L flashes will be TTL compatible; future firmware updates will add support for other models. Read more

Panasonic has announced a firmware update for the Lumix DMC-GH4, bringing Post Focus, 4K Photo and burst shooting with flash to the video-centric mirrorless camera. The update will be available at the end of March, free of charge. Read more

Updated: Panasonic has announced the Lumix DMC-GH4R, a Europe-only variant of the GH4 that offers a Log gamma curve and unlimited 4K video recording. There will also be a paid-for firmware update adding the V-Log L Photo Style to the GH4 - a super-flat tone curve designed to capture the maximum dynamic range for greater flexibility while color grading. Read more

The Panasonic Center in Osaka has installed a photo booth that uses 120 Lumix DMC-GH4 cameras to create a three-dimensional impression of the occupants, which can then be turned into a plaster figurine. Panasonic claims that what makes its booth stand out is that the 'scan' is created in just 1/1000sec. That means the subjects can be in motion and the image will still be sharp. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Nikon Z6 may not offer the incredible resolution of its sibling, the Z7, but its 24MP resolution is more than enough for most people, and the money saved can buy a lot of glass. Find out what's new and notable about the Z6 in our First Impressions Review.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

The SiOnyx Aurora is a compact camera designed to shoot stills and video in color under low light conditions, so we put it to the test under the northern lights and against a Nikon D5. It may not be a replacement for a DSLR, but it can complement one well for some uses.

At its core, the Scanza is an easy-to-use multi-format film scanner. It offers a quick and easy way to scan your film negatives and slides into JPEGs, but costs a lot more than similar products without a Kodak label.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

Sony had the full-frame mirrorless market to itself for nearly five years, but it's no longer alone – the Nikon Z6 and Canon EOS R have both arrived priced to compete with the a7 III. We take a head to head to head look at these three cameras.

As if it needed one, the triple-camera smartphone might really be the final nail in the compact camera's coffin. DPR contributor Lars Rehm brought the LG V40 on a hiking trip recently and found it to be a huge leap forward in terms of creative freedom.

Renowned UK-based landscape photographer Nigel Danson has been using DSLRs for years. In this video, created exclusively for DPReview, Nigel discusses his experience using the Nikon Z7 and why he's excited about mirrorless cameras. (Spoiler... beautiful scenery ahead.)

Chinese optical manufacturer Kipon has added the Nikon Z and Canon R mounts to its range of adapters made to attach medium format lenses from Hasselblad, Mamiya, Pentax and others to full frame cameras.